The Internet’s effect on personality traits: An important casualty of the “Internet addiction” paradigm (2024)

Abstract

Keywords: impulsivity, personality, Internet addiction, problematic Internet use, Internet gaming disorder,

Scholars have increasingly questioned the concept of “Internet addiction”that has dominated research into Internet psychology for nearly two decades. Criticismhas targeted the lack of focus on individual problematic behaviors performed online(; ); the confusionbetween addiction to a medium and addiction to a specific pursuit (); the relative insistence on withdrawaland tolerance as defining features (); the challenge in defining excessive use as people areincreasingly always online (); the unrealistic separation between the Internet and myriad gaming andtexting platforms now accessible via the same device (Aboujaoude, 2010); and the lack of rigor in ruling out possible proximalcauses, such as depression, social anxiety, and attention deficit and hyperactivitydisorder (Aboujaoude, 2010; Starcevic, 2010). Such shortcomings have contributed to, and arereflected in, the lack of an agreed upon name among the several that have been proposed[e.g., “Internet addiction” (; Young, 2010),“problematic Internet use” (Aboujaoude,2010; ; ; ; Spada,2014) “compulsive Internet use” (Greenfield, 1999; ), and“pathological use of electronic media” (Pies, 2009)] and the absence of an established definition for whatconstitutes Internet-related psychopathology. Inclusion of “Internet gamingdisorder” in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders (DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association,2013) as a condition for further research has not provided much direction, inpart due to inconsistencies within the text (e.g., confounding Internet- andgaming-related pathology) (p.796), leading to recommendations for clarity in thefield ().

Another rarely discussed deficit in research conducted to date is the near total lack ofconsideration for the psychological effects of the Internet among individuals whoseonline behavior cannot plausibly be called “addictive,”“problematic,” or “compulsive,” or who do not meet criteriafor any proposed definition of problematic use (Aboujaoude, 2011). The focus on addiction, gambling, orobsessive–compulsive disorder models in approaching this problem has had theeffect of leaving those users – i.e., the majority of people online –feeling deceptively immune to the psychological impact of this medium. Yet the subtlenegative psychological changes they may be undergoing as a result of the Internet can beas pervasive as the medium itself, even if precious little has been written about thembeyond the narrow focus on severe psychopathology implied by “Internetaddiction” and similar designations.

Popular culture abounds with examples of individuals acting in more impulsive,narcissistic, and aggressive ways online. The Internet and related technologies seem tonurture these psychological traits, perhaps due to an “online disinhibitioneffect” that has been postulated to explain the less controlled behavior thatmany people display online (Suler, 2004). Thesetraits are easily recognizable to most Internet users, even if very little empiric dataare available about their true extent, or whether they are transposed into real life,potentially “redesigning” the offline individual in the image of hisavatar. Still, some findings from studies conducted so far raise concerns about a risein impulsivity, narcissism, and aggression due to the online lifestyle.

Internet-related technologies exacerbate impulsivity (), as suggested, in part, by their effect ongambling disorder and compulsive buying disorder, both of which have been conceptualizedas impulse control disorders (Aboujaoude, 2014;). As early as 2001,the American Psychiatric Association recognized an enabling effect of the Internet ongambling, leading it to issue an advisory warning to highlight its concerns (American Psychiatric Association, 2001). Since then,data on online gambling prevalence rates have proven these concerns to be justified(Brunelle etal., 2012; ; ; ;). While the use ofonline designs and self-selected samples limits the conclusions of several studies, oneinternational study followed a weighted approach to analyze data from a large sample ofgamblers (N = 12,521) (). Among Internet gamblers, 16.4% weremoderate or severe problem gamblers, compared with 5.7% among non-Internet gamblers.When “at risk” gamblers are included, 39.9% of Internet gamblers wereconsidered non-problem gamblers compared with 82.1% of non-Internet gamblers.

It was initially thought that the Internet might help curb the effects of compulsivebuying by allowing price comparisons, protecting against in-store marketing, and savingpeople time by freeing them from the need to go to stores (Aboujaoude, 2011, p.137). Unfortunately, data from studies ofonline shopping suggest a different outcome. For example, in a study of 314 customers(mean age = 53 years) of an online retail store, 17.7% were found tomeet criteria for compulsive buying (). Compared to those with non-pathological buying,compulsive buyers were more motivated to buy online, and their motivation was linked tothe immediate gratification following an Internet purchase and the ability to shopunobserved and without company. Another study of compulsive online buying involved 200French university students (mean age = 20.2 years) and found asimilar rate (16%) of compulsive online buying (). Compared with non-compulsive online shoppers,compulsive shoppers preferred online buying for the immediate positive gratification(63.8% vs. 32.6%, p < .0001). Importantly, the ratesof compulsive buying among online shoppers in these studies exceed the prevalenceestimates from studies that were conducted either before the advent of online retail orthat did not focus solely on it. Among those, the largest US population-based surveyestimated prevalence at 5.8% ().

One cannot commit suicide online the way one can gamble or make a purchase, but suiciderates have also risen in recent years, as revealed in recent US food and drugadministration data (). Impulsivity has long been recognized as a risk factor for suicideacross diagnoses, and the rise in suicide rates has been linked to an Internet effectthat may be making self-harm impulses more difficult to resist via providing an“encouraging” environment that softens and circumvents offline deterrents(Aboujaoude, 2016). From gambling to shoppingand suicide, while the biological underpinnings of the specific impulsivitymanifestation have yet to be explored, imaging and neuropsychological research mayprovide some explanations in the form of altered behavioral task performance andamygdala gray matter density (Ko etal.,2015) or changing activation levels in the ventral anterior cingulate cortex,dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and left orbitofrontal cortex ().

Narcissism is another trait that often characterizes online behavior. Cultural criticism(Aboujaoude, 2011) has focused on websites asvehicles for self-promotion (e.g., “Façade”-book), social networksthat imply popularity via the number of one’s “friends” or“followers,” and the emphasis on “I” in naming sites andInternet-powered gadgets. One study attempted to explore the issue empirically in 129undergraduate Facebook users (). Researchers administered the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI),a scale designed to detect narcissistic traits by asking test takers to choose betweenstatements such as “My body is nothing special” versus “I like tolook at my body.” Separately, independent evaluators who did not meet thesubjects analyzed their Facebook pages according to preset objective and subjectivecriteria. Objective criteria included the number of friends listed, the number of groupsthe person belonged to, the number of lines of text in the “About Me”section, and the number of Wall posts. Subjective criteria included the content of the“About Me” section (rated as self-absorbed, self-important,self-promoting, or self-conscious) and the clothing worn in the main photo (rated asattractive, self-promoting, sexy, vain, or modest). The scores on objective andsubjective measures of narcissism were then tallied and compared with NPI scores.

Results showed that independent raters were able to accurately detect thesubjects’ narcissism level based on their profile content, as higher NPI scoreswere linked to more Facebook interactions and to profile photographs that were judged assexier and more self-promoting. The authors conclude that “because narcissistshave more social contacts on Facebook than the non-narcissists, the average user willexperience a social network that over-represents narcissists… [This] raises thepossibility that … norms of expression on social networking sites will be pulledin the direction of greater self-promotion.” In other words, when it comes tonarcissistic traits, the Internet can act as a magnet and a magnifier.

Besides impulsivity and narcissism, Internet users can demonstrate more gratuitousaggression, as any visit to an anonymous blogging bulletin or chat room quicklydemonstrates. Unbound by the rules and norms that govern offline life, onlineinteractions too often devolve to an base, instinct-driven mode of behaving that ignoresthe standards of ethics and civility. Online shaming and name-calling, cyberbullying,and the voicing of racist and ideologically radical opinions are only a few examples(Aboujaoude, 2011). Real concern exists as towhether such violent online discourse may lead to a more hostile, less cohesive society(Aboujaoude, 2011). While research has yet toanswer this question, some studies on the long-term effects of violent online games havegenerated worrisome results. For example, a large meta-analysis that involved over130,298 participants tested the effect of video game violence in a cross-cultural sampledrawn from Western (mostly US) and Eastern (mostly Japanese) societies (Anderson etal., 2010). Results stronglysuggested that exposure to gaming violence was a causal risk factor for offlineaggression, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, decreased empathy, and decreasedprosocial behavior. Furthermore, when data allowed it to be tested, there was no clearmoderator effect by gender or culture on these outcome measures. As far as theconsequences on personality and behavior of some online pursuits, then, it would seem asthough people are all more alike than different.

Besides impulsivity, narcissism, and aggression, traits such as regression andgrandiosity have been described as integral parts of the online experience and of theonline personality (Aboujaoude, 2011). Thechild-like writing style that many adopt online, heavy on emoticons, contractions andbitmojis (expressive personal cartoon avatars), and the very high popularity amongadults of online games might be seen as a sign of devolution to less mature stages ofdevelopment (Aboujaoude, 2011). Similarly, the“Wild West” metaphor, present at the origin of the Internet when itimplied that anything was possible in this new uncharted world, remains relevant andstill causes many to approach the Internet with limitless optimism and somewhatdeceptive self-empowerment (Aboujaoude, 2011).Whether these traits are resulting in a less mature or more grandiose society is aquestion that has yet to be seriously asked and answered.

Internet-related technologies have important psychological effects that manifest onlineand that may remain relevant offline, too, after the person has logged off. The focus on“Internet addiction” has diverted attention away from such“everyday” psychological experiences that can be said to affect, tovarying degrees, most users, even if these users cannot be considered addicted to themedium under any proposed definition of pathological use. Much has been written tochallenge the addiction paradigm in approaching the Internet, but the lack of attentionto the more subtle personality changes that occur as a result of interactions with newtechnologies represents another serious, broadly relevant but rarely discussed cost tothis approach. Yet, as a crucial part of online psychology, how technology andpersonality interact is well worthy of serious research attention and exploration.

Conflict of interest

The author reports no conflict of interest pertaining to this article.

Funding Statement

Funding sources: The author received no fundingfor researching and writing this article.

References